And don't say "intelligent causation" unless you also explains how that adds anything to what is known without merely inserting that phrase into summaries of current knowledge.

And yes I would most certainly need your better explanation for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause". But since you are unable to even begin developing theory like this, you are best off just pretending that science allows you to deny such requests.

Given that you define things idiosyncratically, what, precisely, is your connotation for "the phenomenon of intelligent cause"?

From Theory:

Quote

Introduction – Intelligence, Intelligent Cause

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).

You are confused once again. That's an ontological assertion, not a phenomenological definition.

And don't say "intelligent causation" unless you also explains how that adds anything to what is known without merely inserting that phrase into summaries of current knowledge.

And yes I would most certainly need your better explanation for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause". But since you are unable to even begin developing theory like this, you are best off just pretending that science allows you to deny such requests.

Given that you define things idiosyncratically, what, precisely, is your connotation for "the phenomenon of intelligent cause"?

From Theory:

Quote

Introduction – Intelligence, Intelligent Cause

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).

You are confused once again. That's an ontological assertion, not a phenomenological definition.

I must admit that I like Gary's concept which contrasts human and less academic organisms. All science so far.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Amazing! They even wrote a paper for countering what is stated in a Wikipedia article!!

My co-author, Mark Perakh, was a citizen of the USSR, fought Nazis in WWII, and spent time in a Soviet gulag for civil disobedience.

I think he has some insight into the Soviet and Nazi systems, and what suppression was about.

I don't see any variance between our account and Wikipedia. So let's see your documentation of what, precisely, in our article "counters" something in the Wikipedia article. If none is forthcoming, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

It is not uncommon for otherwise good people to get caught up in suppression of science. In fact, that's why I provided the link. It's something US history teachers should truthfully cover, as well as the other side of the WW2 conflict in Germany that did the same thing but with slogans like "Gott mit uns" (meaning God with us). Both sides trashed science for their ideology. Same is happening now, in this forum. The most vocal here use Stalinist tactics against the Discovery Institute's tactics that introduced a (once) religious theory very much like what was taught in German schools where God created life in present form and other races were messed up by evolution thus they felt obliged to exterminate all others (I also read the Nazi science teachers guide they had to follow).

Only thing that will save us from the WW3 you are all working hard towards, is real-science.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Amazing! They even wrote a paper for countering what is stated in a Wikipedia article!!

My co-author, Mark Perakh, was a citizen of the USSR, fought Nazis in WWII, and spent time in a Soviet gulag for civil disobedience.

I think he has some insight into the Soviet and Nazi systems, and what suppression was about.

I don't see any variance between our account and Wikipedia. So let's see your documentation of what, precisely, in our article "counters" something in the Wikipedia article. If none is forthcoming, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

It is not uncommon for otherwise good people to get caught up in suppression of science. In fact, that's why I provided the link. It's something US history teachers should truthfully cover, as well as the other side of the WW2 conflict in Germany that did the same thing but with slogans like "Gott mit uns" (meaning God with us). Both sides trashed science for their ideology. Same is happening now, in this forum. The most vocal here use Stalinist tactics against the Discovery Institute's tactics that introduced a (once) religious theory very much like what was taught in German schools where God created life in present form and other races were messed up by evolution thus they felt obliged to exterminate all others (I also read the Nazi science teachers guide they had to follow).

Only thing that will save us from the WW3 you are all working hard towards, is real-science.

That's right, "Same is happening now, in this forum. The most vocal here use Stalinist tactics" - this open forum, where you can post without moderation as compatred to "the Discovery Institute's " which always has comments closed. Again, you find yourself at odds with reality.

And don't say "intelligent causation" unless you also explains how that adds anything to what is known without merely inserting that phrase into summaries of current knowledge.

And yes I would most certainly need your better explanation for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause". But since you are unable to even begin developing theory like this, you are best off just pretending that science allows you to deny such requests.

Given that you define things idiosyncratically, what, precisely, is your connotation for "the phenomenon of intelligent cause"?

From Theory:

Quote

Introduction – Intelligence, Intelligent Cause

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).

You are confused once again. That's an ontological assertion, not a phenomenological definition.

There is much more than that on intelligent cause, including the previously shown illustrations. I used the first paragraph of the Introduction because of it summing things up in as few words as possible.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).

You are confused once again. That's an ontological assertion, not a phenomenological definition.

That's right, "Same is happening now, in this forum. The most vocal here use Stalinist tactics" - this open forum, where you can post without moderation as compatred to "the Discovery Institute's " which always has comments closed. Again, you find yourself at odds with reality.

I found that the modern day conflict primarily uses the recently invented philosophical Poppersim that works great to suppress politically inconvenient theory. First comes the false claim that finding rabbits in the Cambrian would falsify their theory, then they pompously refuse to accept anything given as falsification of this theory. After I discovered the hypocrisy of the game, I stopped playing it.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

That's right, "Same is happening now, in this forum. The most vocal here use Stalinist tactics" - this open forum, where you can post without moderation as compatred to "the Discovery Institute's " which always has comments closed. Again, you find yourself at odds with reality.

I found that the modern day conflict primarily uses the recently invented philosophical Poppersim that works great to suppress politically inconvenient theory. First comes the false claim that finding rabbits in the Cambrian would falsify their theory, then they pompously refuse to accept anything given as falsification of this theory. After I discovered the hypocrisy of the game, I stopped playing it.

I can see your 'theory' actually being a conjecture an inconvenience (to you).

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).

You are confused once again. That's an ontological assertion, not a phenomenological definition.

Can we get it opperationalized, please?

Request denied!!!!111!!!eleven!!!!!

If you want to reword it then go ahead. If it is better than what is there now then I'll use that instead. But considering all else that there is for detail, it will likely become redundant.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).

You are confused once again. That's an ontological assertion, not a phenomenological definition.

Can we get it opperationalized, please?

Request denied!!!!111!!!eleven!!!!!

If you want to reword it then go ahead. If it is better than what is there now then I'll use that instead. But considering all else that there is for detail, it will likely become redundant.

Ah look - Gary's make changes as he's being corrected. Looks like a well thought out 'theory' to me..

Welcome to the scientific concept known as "informal peer review".

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Amazing! They even wrote a paper for countering what is stated in a Wikipedia article!!

My co-author, Mark Perakh, was a citizen of the USSR, fought Nazis in WWII, and spent time in a Soviet gulag for civil disobedience.

I think he has some insight into the Soviet and Nazi systems, and what suppression was about.

I don't see any variance between our account and Wikipedia. So let's see your documentation of what, precisely, in our article "counters" something in the Wikipedia article. If none is forthcoming, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

It is not uncommon for otherwise good people to get caught up in suppression of science. In fact, that's why I provided the link. It's something US history teachers should truthfully cover, as well as the other side of the WW2 conflict in Germany that did the same thing but with slogans like "Gott mit uns" (meaning God with us). Both sides trashed science for their ideology. Same is happening now, in this forum. The most vocal here use Stalinist tactics against the Discovery Institute's tactics that introduced a (once) religious theory very much like what was taught in German schools where God created life in present form and other races were messed up by evolution thus they felt obliged to exterminate all others (I also read the Nazi science teachers guide they had to follow).

Only thing that will save us from the WW3 you are all working hard towards, is real-science.

Uh, no.

You are a pusillanimous swine.

You can't point out any "countering". You join the DI Fellows in their scurrilous misuse of Soviet and Nazi allusions. You are beyond contemptible.

That's right, "Same is happening now, in this forum. The most vocal here use Stalinist tactics" - this open forum, where you can post without moderation as compatred to "the Discovery Institute's " which always has comments closed. Again, you find yourself at odds with reality.

I found that the modern day conflict primarily uses the recently invented philosophical Poppersim that works great to suppress politically inconvenient theory. First comes the false claim that finding rabbits in the Cambrian would falsify their theory, then they pompously refuse to accept anything given as falsification of this theory. After I discovered the hypocrisy of the game, I stopped playing it.

1934 is recent?

Bonnie and Clyde died that year. The Sikorsky S-42 flying boat had its maiden flight. The Queen Mary liner was launched. And the trampoline was invented.

You seem to have a weak grasp of the passage of time. Along with philosophy, science, and English.

And don't say "intelligent causation" unless you also explains how that adds anything to what is known without merely inserting that phrase into summaries of current knowledge.

And yes I would most certainly need your better explanation for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause". But since you are unable to even begin developing theory like this, you are best off just pretending that science allows you to deny such requests.

Given that you define things idiosyncratically, what, precisely, is your connotation for "the phenomenon of intelligent cause"?

From Theory:

Quote

Introduction – Intelligence, Intelligent Cause

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).

You are confused once again. That's an ontological assertion, not a phenomenological definition.

There is much more than that on intelligent cause, including the previously shown illustrations. I used the first paragraph of the Introduction because of it summing things up in as few words as possible.

That's right, "Same is happening now, in this forum. The most vocal here use Stalinist tactics" - this open forum, where you can post without moderation as compatred to "the Discovery Institute's " which always has comments closed. Again, you find yourself at odds with reality.

I found that the modern day conflict primarily uses the recently invented philosophical Poppersim that works great to suppress politically inconvenient theory. First comes the false claim that finding rabbits in the Cambrian would falsify their theory, then they pompously refuse to accept anything given as falsification of this theory. After I discovered the hypocrisy of the game, I stopped playing it.

1934 is recent?

Bonnie and Clyde died that year. The Sikorsky S-42 flying boat had its maiden flight. The Queen Mary liner was launched. And the trampoline was invented.

You seem to have a weak grasp of the passage of time. Along with philosophy, science, and English.

There are a number of scholarly articles to be found online for Karl Popper and Popperism. I chose this link from Russia because of the way it quickly points out similarities with what Russia already learned a tragic lesson about.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

That's right, "Same is happening now, in this forum. The most vocal here use Stalinist tactics" - this open forum, where you can post without moderation as compatred to "the Discovery Institute's " which always has comments closed. Again, you find yourself at odds with reality.

I found that the modern day conflict primarily uses the recently invented philosophical Poppersim that works great to suppress politically inconvenient theory. First comes the false claim that finding rabbits in the Cambrian would falsify their theory, then they pompously refuse to accept anything given as falsification of this theory. After I discovered the hypocrisy of the game, I stopped playing it.

1934 is recent?

Bonnie and Clyde died that year. The Sikorsky S-42 flying boat had its maiden flight. The Queen Mary liner was launched. And the trampoline was invented.

You seem to have a weak grasp of the passage of time. Along with philosophy, science, and English.

There are a number of scholarly articles to be found online for Karl Popper and Popperism. I chose this link from Russia because of the way it quickly points out similarities with what Russia already learned a tragic lesson about.

Very impressive, Gary. So "recently invented philosophical Poppersim" (sic) doesn't mean when the concepts were invented, but rather when some random person chooses to comment upon them?

That is yet another, um, different definition in play for "invented".

And while you don't much like Karl Popper's ideas, I think that you'd have liked the logical positivists even less. Popper's work was at least in part a reaction to the ideas that became known as logical positivism. It might be enlightening (to somebody else, at least) to read up on it.

I am aware that Karl Popper based his work on others in philosophy. But that that does not make it science.

The myth is that Popperism (falsification) is the foundation upon which the scientific method is based upon, when in fact the scientific method dates back to around the time of Prophet Muhammad or earlier.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

You can't point out any "countering". You join the DI Fellows in their scurrilous misuse of Soviet and Nazi allusions. You are beyond contemptible.

Nice example of how those who go against your philosophy are immediately punished. The tactic even has science journals getting in-line and (without questioning its actual scientific usefulness) obeying all command.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

Gary is a heavy-hitter, scoring 30s, 40s, and 50s on the crackpot scale.

That's another good example of how ones who question the prevailing philosophy of science are punished for questioning it.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, I do a lot of hydraulic modeling with a commercially available program (just to say - I am not a scientist).

When I do an analysis I always begin with comparing the model to existing reality. I may need to adjust my model parameters, like perhaps ground temp, to make sure my model better matches actual flow conditions.

This is with a simple hydraulic model. Your model, from what I can gather, attempts to model much more than linear single phase flow. Have you done any comparing to reality? If so, please show that. If not, why not and why would you think your model has value?